Would it be possible to use the Linux iso and windows iso’s that come with Hyper-v to create a Virtual lab?
If it is any ideas how it would work?
1 Like
Install Windows Server Datacenter so you can spin up multiple VM’s simultaneously.
It’s exactly what everyone does in enterprise environments.
2019 is EOL
1 Like
Do you have any particular reason to run hyper-v? No? Then run a kvm-based hypervisor.
1 Like
Is there anyway to do it using only the ISO’s that come with hyper-v? Or is it just easier to use windows server?
I have heard this mentioned. What’s the benift of using this? I’ve only ever used VirtualBox and hyper-v
VirtualBox is quite laggy, when it comes to virtualization. Hyper-V is somewhat solid, but it’s proprietary and some features are weird (like when I power off a VM from inside, then when I try to power it on, hyper-v reporting that it was a crash and asks me if I want to restore from previously working state - which is an annoyance, which could prevent auto-start, if you have your hypervisor shut down for the night).
KVM hypervisors, like Proxmox, run on Linux and as far as this one is concerned, it’s straight forward to install. Keep in mind that while virtualbox runs on a windows desktop (it can run headless too) and hyper-v runs on either desktop or windows server, a KVM hypervisor can only run on a linux system, meaning that you need to format your device to run it.
So 1 “good reason” to run hyper-v, is if you’re running VMs on your own desktop (it’s honestly somewhat better than virtualbox to some degree and for certain scenarios). But if you’re running VMs on a different system, just install something like proxmox.
2 Likes
So are saying the way this would work is if I do this as a Hyper v nested virtual lab?
I am not a fan of nested virtualization, but it can be done. You can install proxmox inside hyper-v on your PC and make the lab inside proxmox. Or you could use another PC, install proxmox there and either run your lab there directly, or install another hypervisor inside proxmox.
For obvious reasons, I suggest that you run your workload directly as close to the “bottom hypervisor” (closest to the hardware). You take a decent amount of penalty for nested virtualization (when using VMs, that is) and you’re limited in the constraints of your hardware and your vlab size (you can’t allocate all the hardware resources to your nested hypervisor, so you’re left with less to work with, e.g. storage space, where you need a vdisk where you install both the hypervisor and the VMs running inside it - while if you run your lab straight in hyper-v, assuming you’re running a windows pc, then you can play with additional resources, e.g. usb ssds).
Once you’ve decided where you’re going to run your lab on (your “bottom hypervisor” or inside a nested hypervisor), you can just grab whatever ISOs, copy them in an accessible place by the hypervisor and install the things you want to install. For networking, you can have everything use a bridge / virtual network, keep everything inside the hypervisor and if you need to, have a single VM that acts as the router, which is NAT-ed behind your local network.
IDK what else to tell you, other than “just try doing something” and see what works for you.
2 Likes
Thanks for the ideas I will try them all and see how it goes.
\Hyper-V on desktop is kneecapped pretty severely
Crazy limitations
Even Server Standard can only spin up 2 VM’s at a time
Hyper-V is only beneficial if you are running a virtualized Windows environment and want to pass through TPM.
Otherwise ProxMox is the way to go.
As stated above: A dedicated hypervisor box (no matter the host) is worth it’s weight in gold
2 Likes
If what you’re saying is true, then running proxmox inside hyper-v and having nested emulation, would be a must, in order to run more than 2 vms at a time. For that, you’d need to bridge the hyper-v “switch” to your local LAN, if you want to access the web interface from your browser (otherwise, you’d have to use the CLI or access it from a 2nd VM in the same hyper-v network switch).
That’d be pretty insane. I suppose the advantage is that you could in theory dd the vdisk contents into an ssd and slap the same vlab onto a bare metal, later on. But I’d think nested virtualization would be far worse than just running virtualbox, at that point.
1 Like
Not generally advised. Although in theory anything passed should be ready to run in the VM, overhead and strange issues can and do arise.
You’ll need to pass full GPU’s to the VM so ProxMox can handle it, have RDMA and all the virtualization support.
Even then, ProxMox will be running with at best 90% of the hardware passed to it from another hypervisor, and at worst 70%.
Agreed, I advise against it myself.
Passing a GPU to proxmox won’t really do much, unless your workload is already on proxmox (and passing it yet against to a vm will probably not work - I’d be surprised if it does).
I’d say the penalty is much higher, since you’re paying a CPU price for the virtual CPUs, then an additional price for the VMs vcpus inside proxmox and the penalty for emulating storage once in hyper-v, then once more in proxmox. It’s frankly not something you’d use, unless you have no other option.
This is why I just suggested OP keeps running virtualbox, if he has no other alternatives, if hyper-v won’t allow him to run more than a couple VMs. Ideally a a separate (even low-end) hardware running the hypervisor is what one should use, but I realize not everyone has money to throw on more hardware (so I didn’t suggest that).
2 Likes